NewsWrap
for the week ending December 11, 2004
(As broadcast on This Way Out program #872, distributed 12-13-04)
[Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Rex Wockner, and
Greg Gordon]
Reported this week by Cindy Friedman and Jon Beaupré
New Zealand gay and lesbian couples will be able to register civil unions
in April, following the Parliament's final approval of the Labour Government's
bill this week with a conscience vote of 65-to-55. Passage followed three
days of intense debate as the bill passed through both its committee stage and
its third reading. Opponents proposed more than 70 amendments but the
potentially damaging ones were defeated, some by larger majorities than supported the
bill itself.
The final debate centered largely on whether or not the civil unions were
actually so-called "gay marriage" and whether or not that was a good thing. Some
opponents referred to civil unions as "gay marriage in drag". But the
Government clarified that while civil unions will be almost entirely equivalent to
marriage in status, they differ in at least one substantive way: like other
unmarried couples in New Zealand, registered same-gender couples will not be
allowed to adopt an unrelated child together.
The final vote brought cheers from supporters in the galleries. Outside
about 200 supporters released balloons and danced to classic disco tunes, while a
slightly larger number of opponents stood silent in protest. Brian Tamaki,
whose Destiny Church members wore black in the face of what he called a tragedy,
warned that while gays and lesbians "may have seemingly won the battle ...
they haven't won the war."
And in fact the legislative battle will continue when the Relationships
(Statutory References) Bill -- the one that will give substance to civil unions by
amending numerous existing laws that refer only to legal spouses -- comes to
the floor. Intended to be considered in company with the Civil Unions bill,
it's been delayed as a parliamentary committee deals with the details.
The New Zealand proceedings were observed with envy from across the Tasman
Sea by Australian marriage equality activists, whose own hopes for national
recognition of their relationships were largely dashed by the recent electoral
triumph of the Liberal Party and its Coalition Government. The group
Australian Marriage Equality noted that New Zealand will extend civil union status to
same-gender couples married in other countries, and that it would be easy for
Australian gay and lesbian couples to move there for the recognition they're
denied at home.
Australian couples are currently facing two political challenges at the state
level. South Australia is the only state which has not yet granted some
legal status to same-gender couples, but the state Government has advanced its
Relationships Bill to change that. This week South Australia's Upper House voted
for a committee inquiry into the bill. The state group Let's Get Equal
feared this could be a means to stall the measure, and organized five hundred
activists to deliver 24,000 letters to lawmakers. They're now reassured to find
most Upper House Members support an "expeditious" process that will ensure the
bill is back on the table early in the coming year.
But in West Australia, Opposition Leader Colin Barnett announced this week
that if his Liberal Party takes power after upcoming state elections, they'll
repeal recent reforms for equality. Just two years ago under its current
Australian Labor Party Government, West Australia made a great legislative leap
from having the nation's worst laws for gays and lesbians to having some of its
best. But Barnett proposes to reinstate a higher age of consent for sex
between men -- albeit at 18 instead of the previous 21, compared to 16 for other
sex partners. He wants to prohibit adoptions by same-gender couples and to deny
fertility treatment to all unmarried women. He's even interested in ending
all unmarried couples' access to Family Court for settling property disputes on
dissolution. He denies any desire to discriminate, insisting he wants only
to protect "the institutions of marriage and family".
Naturally gay and lesbian activists responded with outrage, including a gay
male couple who'd gained visibility as near-winners on a reality TV show.
Barnett backed off slightly, saying his party would not necessarily repeal the
equality laws but would "review" them. He may have been more moved by the leader
of his Coalition partner the National Party, Max Trenorden, declaring the
whole area "a waste of time" and not one in which his constituents had shown any
interest.
The group Pride West Australia is not at all reassured, and is mounting a
major "Equality 2005" campaign against the Liberals to run through the state
elections, which are expected to be held in February.
Canada's Liberal Party Government will be introducing national marriage
equality legislation next month, following the delivery this week of the
long-awaited answers to its four questions to the Supreme Court of Canada. The high
court's response is only advisory but carries tremendous influence. The court
unanimously affirmed that federal lawmakers have the authority to extend the
federal definition of marriage to include same-gender couples; that it would be
constitutional to do so; and that clergy have the constitutional right to
refuse to perform those marriages. Equally unanimously, the court offered a more
complex reaction to the fourth question as to whether the current federal
definition that excludes same-gender couples from marriage is constitutional.
The court declined to respond to the question as posed, on the grounds that a
series of provincial court rulings have found that it is not, and the Canadian
Government has not only chosen not to appeal those rulings but has clearly
adopted that position as its own.
The justices wrote, "Several centuries ago, it would have been understood
that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of
same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European
countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."
These responses obviously open the door for lawmakers but do not force them
to take any action. Despite considerable dissent from the backbench of the
ruling Liberal Party, Prime Minister Paul Martin affirmed that the Government
will introduce its bill. The vote could be close, as the largest Opposition
party, the Conservatives, oppose the move, while the smaller Bloc Quebecois and
New Democratic Party unanimously support it. But even if the federal bill
should fail, the provincial and territorial legal rulings that have already
opened marriage to 85% of Canada's same-gender couples would stand.
The court's advisory has effectively deprived Alberta's staunchly
Conservative Premier Ralph Klein of almost every legal tool to block marriage equality,
so looking to the political realm, he's calling for a national referendum on
the issue.
Even if that unusual step were taken, a late November poll found only about a
quarter of Canadians entirely oppose marriage equality, compared to nearly
40% who support it, and about a third support near-equal civil standing for
same-gender couples.
There's also been a big step forward for legal recognition for Israeli
same-gender couples, as the nation's Attorney General this week announced he's
issued a directive to acknowledge gay and lesbian domestic partners as equivalent
to unmarried heterosexual couples with respect to financial matters including
taxation and real estate. Menachem Mazuz is reversing the position of his
conservative predecessor, who was determined to prevent state recognition of
same-gender couples. Mazuz has chosen not to appeal a recent ground-breaking
ruling by a Nazareth District Court, letting stand its finding that a gay man had
the same status as a common-law spouse to inherit his deceased domestic
partner's apartment. Lawmakers from two parliamentary parties welcomed the new
policy, but one conservative rabbi warned that, "Laws like these will bring the
flood upon us."
The struggle for legal recognition of same-gender couples continues in the
U.S. as well.
This week a New York state trial court rejected the major lawsuit seeking
marriage equality there, as Judge Joseph Teresi found that denying marriage to
gay and lesbian couples is allowed under the New York state constitution. The
American Civil Liberties Union plans to appeal that ruling on behalf of the 13
plaintiff couples.
The similar lawsuit in New Jersey, brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of
seven gay and lesbian couples, was argued before a state appeals court this week.
Regardless of the outcome, it's inevitable that that case will be appealed
to the New Jersey state Supreme Court, which may well hear it in the coming
year.
Two more marriage equality lawsuits will be considered together by the
Washington state Supreme Court in March, it was announced this week.
On the first day of California's new legislative session, openly gay state
Democratic Assemblymember Mark Leno reintroduced his bill for marriage
equality. But also introduced this week, by Republican state Senator Bill Morrow at
the urging of the Traditional Values Coalition, was a proposal to amend the
state constitution to define marriage solely as between a man and a woman. The
Traditional Values Coalition is also campaigning to downgrade the benefits of
California's registered domestic partnerships, which as of January 1st will
become the second strongest in the nation.
And finally... an Indian lesbian couple known as Raju and Mala eloped two
weeks ago and this week celebrated a Hindu wedding in Chandigarh, the capital
of Punjab. When they then returned to their home in the Sikh holy city of
Amritsar, they faced strong objections from their families and neighbors, but
stood firm in their intention to live together. Mala's father demanded that
police intervene, and officers reluctantly brought the couple before a city
magistrate. The magistrate dismissed the case as police admitted they could not come
up with a law to use against the women. In the wake of that dismissal, the
families have abandoned their demands the women separate. The couple say
they'd rather die than be parted, and have vowed they'll fight for legal
recognition of their marriage.